Workforce Bulletin

On October 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, District of Maryland, denied a motion for a preliminary injunction and stay in National Ass’n of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump with respect to the March 2026 Executive Order (EO) No. 14398, “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s enforcement priorities have changed, and it seems, so have corresponding timelines to respond to employee charge allegations. Employers responding to charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC are encountering shorter deadlines for submitting position statements. This development makes prompt coordination with counsel and timely collection of evidence more important than ever.

The State of Rhode Island – the smallest state in the nation – is not often thought of as a trendsetter for legal issues. But in July 2025, the Ocean State set off the latest trend in employment protections by becoming the first state to enact employment-related legislation meant to support women who experience menopause.

On September 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined the Sixth and Ninth Circuits in their interpretation of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act’s (EFAA) scope. In Diaz-Roa v. Hermes Law, P.C., the court extended the developing consensus view that a plaintiff who includes a “claim” of sexual assault or sexual harassment in their complaint extends the statute’s invalidation of an existing agreement to arbitrate every claim in the lawsuit—in other words, the entire “case.”

Effective December 13, 2026, New York State will require most private employers to stock their workplaces with opioid antagonists (antidotes), such as naloxone or Narcan.

Part of the “ERISA – You’ll Need a Lawyer for That” series.

On September 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2026-03 (“FAB 2026-03”) and an accompanying compliance resource identifying potential warning signs of Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) violations.

On September 30, 2026, the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) issued a proposed rule on the “Prevention of Retail Workplace Violence” prior to the upcoming effective date for the New York Retail Worker Safety Act’s (the “Act”) silent response button provision. Beginning January 1, 2027, the Act will require covered retailers to provide a silent response button, a tool that allows employees to discreetly request immediate assistance during emergencies, as we addressed in a past blog post. The proposed rule provides guidance on what counts as a silent response button under the Act, employer coverage, and other important considerations for New York retail employers.  

The New Jersey Department of Labor (NJDOL) has activated its Employer Response Portal (“Response Portal”). This long-awaited update relates to the July 31, 2023, amendments to the Unemployment Compensation law, which requires employers with employees in the state to report every employee separation electronically to enable faster unemployment benefit determinations.

On August 21, 2026, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published three final rules on behalf of the Department of Labor (DOL), formally rescinding longstanding policies to align regulations governing federal contracts with the Administration’s goals. The new rules, respectively, formally rescinded the implementing affirmative action regulations of Executive Order (EO) 11246, and significantly changed portions of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA).

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit provides an important reminder that an employer’s exposure to a retaliation claim can arise even after it has already made a lawful decision to terminate an employee.

In Russo v. New Hampshire Neurospine Institute, P.A., No. 25-1519 (1st Cir. Aug. 25, 2026), the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an employer on an employee’s sex discrimination claim, but reinstated her retaliation claim. The court concluded that, although the employer had decided to terminate the employee before her attorney sent a demand letter alleging discrimination on her behalf, a jury could find that subsequent changes to the terms and timing of her separation were retaliatory.